August 03, 2004

• I can't believe that this is still making news. The bill has been in limbo for over a year and a half now. Not to mention that both McDermott and Rangel are off their frigging rockers about the makeup of the military. Also, even if they reinstitute the draft, it's not like rich people won't find another way to skirt around it like they did the last two or three times it was instituted. So in essence, if this legislation were to pass, it would do the exact opposite of what they want it to do. And I won't even go down the road about how this would be bad for our economy, bad for our military's morale and efficiency, and bad for the constituents of the congressmen who are looking to put this into law.
• I think the reality might be answered by figuring out whether there is a need for a draft, and whether the average American would put up with it. Are we planning any more colonial campaigns?
• How about this: All the congressmen who voted for the war have to go and fight in it. On the front lines.
• If I were a crow, I would probably be scared, Nickdanger.
• Ewww, is that really a legitimate reason for reinstating the draft? We didn't need a legitimate reason for the war, why should we need one for the draft?
• I'll second Nickdanger's idea. And there should never be a college exception for a draft. If Congress/the White House wants to start a draft, then their kids should have to go too. Really, I think that war should be redefined as putting two heads of state in a ring and letting them duke it out, bareknuckle style.
• I remember, Saddam Hussein offered to do just that at one point in the build-up to war. George Bush declined. What a pussy.
• Hey, does everyone remember the time when Lincoln led that charge at Antietam? No? Or how about the time that Napoleon's bodyguard outflanked that band of militia? No? Oh, oh! How about that time that FDR got an Ace over Midway? Hmm... Or that time that Wilson led his brigade past German lines and got surrounded? Seriously? Okay. Now what about that time Priam jumped off of his chariot into the boodbath? Oh. Right.
• Should a draft occur, I won't have too much of a problem. However, like shawnj, I think it ultimately would not be very self-serving, which is kind of the whole point of a draft.
• middleclass -- What in the world are you talking about? I do not like to duke it out in a ring - Oh, "barenuckle" style! Never mind.
• Or bareknuckle, as the case may be.
• Or bernockle style, as the case may be.
• Actually, Kerry has a good idea of making the Army division bigger by two divisions without a draft. The Pentagon doesn't want a draft because it would drain more money with pay and training. Kerry has talked about making some cuts in pork (and there is plenty of it) to have the room in the military budget. I agree with shawnj. This is very old news.
• bernockle style would probably result in some FCC fines.
• Shawnj, Napol
• After becoming the leader of France?
• Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, Auerstadt, Ratisbon, Wagram, Borodino, L
• Right. So he was still leading an army. Quite different from actually fighting with his infantry.
• What, as opposed to phoning it in? Read a biography or six. You are ignorant in this matter.
• I'm pretty sure most generals way back in the past used to be at the head of the army. Not actually the best place to lead the war from (in the field, but at the back probably was in the world before good communications), but anything less wouldn't inspire the men. Richard I died from an arrow wound, and Richard III (guilty or innocent) lost his horse and then his head (in that order) while actually fighting (when he had the horse). A few centuries later, things had changed a bit. Napoleon did march across Europe with his men, although he did have roast chicken; Wellington slept on a camp bed, but probably did not load a gun. However, all of the officers like majors and captains and lieutenants were right out on the field without guns, just swords. They were beside the men to steady them and to lead the charges - the first men to capture a French eagle were an ensign and a serjeant. In the First World War, British officers actually had a much greater casualty rate than the private soldiers; with the higher volunteer rate among the upper class as well, it was their generation (as opposed to the British working class) which was the real "lost generation". (The working class had losses, of course, but just not in the same proportion.) But that probably does not include high level officers. and that does it for my random military history trivia, mostly from movies and novels - well except the WWI stats. That's from a fascinating book by Jay Winter, which is all about demography, health and WWI.
• As opposed to leading from the rear. I don't think the telephone had been invented yet, but then again, I'm ignorant, right? My original point, despite the apparent combat monster nature of Napoleon, was that the days of leaders fighting in battle are way gone. Not that they haven't faught, but that they don't fight in the wars they lead, and for good reason. If the king isn't on the chessboard you can't get mate.
• Sorry, I was a bit offensive up there. Hope everything's maybe 50% cool, shawnj.
• apparent combat monster nature of Napoleon *repeats very slowly* Read. A. Book.
• Sidestepping slightly. I am almost 100% down with MCT's platform. I do accept, however, the tha person I want to lead my country in times of peace OR war is not necessarily the same person I'd get to do the fighting. I can't help but think of Vizzini hiring Fezzik and Inigo in this regard -- everyone has their skills. So, I would allow the nomination of a champion (an old idea), who would stand in the ring in place of the leader, and represent the group/nation. Still just one person, and for all the jacks. But then I also think that Philosopher King idea got short-shrift, so what do I know.
• Just a thought. Can you be a little more incendiary or, perhaps, refute me with something other than an insult?
• Could you be a little more incindiary, Wolof? I'm not quite feeling insulted yet.
• Well, I apologised in the first jinxed link, then read your comment which suggested I didn't know when the telephone was invented and claimed I called you "ignorant". Which I did, but in one specific matter. Only. I am ignorant of many things, myself, but not of the facts of the life of Buonaparte.
• I didn't want to have to this, but this conversation needs more puppies.
• You stupid fucks. Everyone knows Napol
• Wait - maybe I'm thinking of Neopolitan. Whatever. Fuck YOU.
• Ahem! I am so overjoyed to have done that. Doesn't matter to me whether they used to or not. I'm sayin' that from now on, you want to start a war, you've got to put something personal at risk. Period. Your kids, your nuts, your life, your career, you gamble with your own chips.
• Absolutely mct, though I have always thought they should should fight in a warehouse filled with a jungle, and they should have survival knives. Makes for better TV.